New York State Court of Claims

New York State Court of Claims

LOPER v. THE STATE OF NEW YORK, #2002-019-575, Claim No. 104861, Motion No. M-65763


Synopsis


Claimant's motion to reargue denial of discovery motion is denied.

Case Information

UID:
2002-019-575
Claimant(s):
TAMAR LOPER
Claimant short name:
LOPER
Footnote (claimant name) :

Defendant(s):
THE STATE OF NEW YORK
Footnote (defendant name) :

Third-party claimant(s):

Third-party defendant(s):

Claim number(s):
104861
Motion number(s):
M-65763
Cross-motion number(s):

Judge:
FERRIS D. LEBOUS
Claimant's attorney:
TAMAR LOPER, PRO SE
Defendant's attorney:
HON. ELIOT SPITZER, ATTORNEY GENERAL
BY: James E. Shoemaker, Assistant Attorney General,of counsel
Third-party defendant's attorney:

Signature date:
October 1, 2002
City:
Binghamton
Comments:

Official citation:

Appellate results:

See also (multicaptioned case)



Decision

Claimant, an inmate appearing pro se, moves to reargue the denial of his prior discovery motion. The State of New York (hereinafter "State") opposes the motion.


The Court has considered the following papers in connection with this motion:
  1. Notice of Motion No. M-65763, dated September 2, 2002, and filed September 9, 2002.
  2. Affidavit of Tamar Loper, in support of motion, sworn to September 3, 2002.
  3. Affirmation of James E. Shoemaker, AAG, in opposition to motion, dated September 18, 2002, and filed September 20, 2002.
This Court recently denied Claimant's motion seeking various relief relative to his Demand for Bill of Particulars. (Loper v State of New York, Ct Cl, August 14, 2002, Lebous, J., Claim No. 104861, Motion No. M-65387 [UID No. 2002-019-556]).


A motion for reargument pursuant to CPLR 2221 (d) is "[d]esigned to afford a party an opportunity to establish that the court overlooked or misapprehended the relevant facts, or misapplied any controlling principle of law", but does not include the introduction of any new facts. (Foley v Roche, 68 AD2d 558, 567). Such motions are not casually granted since it is not a tool to "[a]fford an unsuccessful party successive opportunities to reargue issues previously decided...." (Matter of Mayer v National Arts Club, 192 AD2d 863, 865). Here, Claimant offers nothing indicating the Court overlooked any facts or law originally presented that warrants reargument of this Court's prior Decision and Order. Claimant's motion for reargument is denied.


Accordingly, in view of the foregoing, it is ORDERED that Claimant's Motion for Reargument, Motion No. M-65763, is DENIED.


October 1, 2002
Binghamton, New York

HON. FERRIS D. LEBOUS
Judge of the Court of Claims



[1]
Unreported Decisions from the Court of Claims are available via the Internet at http://www.nyscourtofclaims.state.ny.us/decisions.